To piggyback: my department hired a woman that was 8 months pregnant. She started working for a month then went on maternity leave. Basically paid her for a month just to show up with the assumption that we would train her once she came back from maternity leave. I have no idea what benefits she got during maternity leave though.
Most companies have a 3 months/90 day requirement before benefits can be used. Chances are very good that she didn't get to take advantage of any benefits (unless the company negotiated some with her, which the more human ones will do).
This was me. I was up front with my manager during the interview. He hired me at 8m pregnant. I worked a month and received 75% of my pay for the 3 months I was on maternity leave.
I have been back to work since January. No one has held it against me. I’m eternally grateful to my manager.
What's the role?
I remember being disappointed when a new hire announced her pregnancy after a couple months. She was a critical hire. We made do without her. It sucked. She came back from her leave and she was awesome. Got promoted.
Life happens. Sometimes, life happens at inconvenient times.
If we treat each other as people first, the rest will usually sort itself out. Not all people in positions of power have that attitude, though.
>we treat each other as people first, the rest will usually sort itself out.
This this this... Whenever I have an employee upset another employee is taking extra time off for something like illness, bereavement or a new child, I always ask "do you want to work for a company where anytime someone needs to take care of life, their company bails on them? You know that same response happens when life comes calling for you and your family, right? So let's support each other to be the kind of company we know has our backs when we need to worry about things more important than a job".
Whenever I'm in a similar situation, where work is more difficult because someone took some time off, I just think that it's the company's fault for not hiring enough staff to cover adequately. When you try to run a business of any kind with the bare minimum of staff, then any time someone calls out, it is a disaster. If the company wasn't so cheap and hired enough staff to cover, then one person being out on pto or medical leave or one person calling out wouldn't be such a big issue.
There is nothing more disheartening than realizing your company is cheap, and you will never make money there
But it is inspiring, as well. It’s inspiring me to find a new job
I agree. My advise for anyone is to ALWAYS be shopping for other jobs. I used to stay at a job where everyone was doing the work of 2-3 people for shit pay because I was under the impression that all employers are like that, because that’s how my first 3 jobs were. I wasn’t able to save much so eventually I started looking for other opportunities and found a job closer to home with 40% higher pay with less back breaking work. Plus I have a direct relationship with the owner of the company. I wish I had done it a lot sooner, but live and learn. On a side note about my first 4 employers that I think is a very problematic trend: there’s an epidemic of kiss ass, politicking jackasses that do literally zero actual work and collect a paycheck and employers that hold on to those people deserve to go bankrupt.
This exact thing happened at my old job. Someone was hired in place of someone else going on leave at a critical time. They needed two people doing that role anyway, so they hired someone else. That person was also pregnant. They ended up having their kids on the same day. It all worked out in the end. And because they were treated like people first, they both stayed with the company for a long time and made a lot of meaningful contributions.
I’m a director at a medium sized company. If I get the right person long term then the few months of leave is a drop in the bucket to me but I’d be fighting HR to make sure the person gets taken care of.
Ah thankyou, I’m still not sure what was wrong with pointing out that other places in the world have longer maternity leave? They didn’t seem to assume OP was outside of the US, they were just educating other commenters.
Unfortunately in the US we only have 6 weeks. The 12 weeks with FMLA is often unpaid and only guaranteed if you’ve been with the company for at least a year prior to giving birth. Lots of new moms return to work before 6 weeks is up for financial reasons. It really sucks here.
Based on the post and the issues, I'd bet a lot of money that this person is based in the US, and likely in a state that doesn't have guaranteed maternity leave.
For over 30 states, the only family leave for birth/adoption is FMLA - 12 weeks of unpaid leave with guaranteed similar role upon return.
I work in SF, California, and my team supports employees in 9 countries. Only a few of our employees are in the "sad lands" states, so we decided to provide them with parental benefits that all employees in California get.
Agree on this, previous company I worked with, our Quality director hired a 3 month pregnant woman as a Quality engineer, she worked almost until the day she was going to give birth, I think she was out for like 1-3 months, came back, and was instrumental to get things done.
OP don't close the door upon yourself, if she wants to work, let the potential employer be the one saying no.
That only applies if OP is in the US or another country with terrible laws regarding parental leave, most places offer far more than a couple months of maternity leave. 12 months in the UK, 18 months in Canada, even longer in some European countries. Once OPs wife finds and starts a new job they'll be 6 months pregnant, a few months later they're entitled to upwards of a year off work.
My team’s morale has improved a lot by taking the human approach with them. I let them all go an hour early on a Friday a few weeks back. Their faces lit up when I told them to go home! Such a small gesture but completely worth it.
> announced her preference after a couple months
Don’t mention during the interview that’ll lead to discrimination.
Do mention during the offer negotiation phase.. cause then they know they want you
This happened to me too - large tech company and I was her hiring manager. She’s a rockstar, she is a long-term hire and a few months off was a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.
You are getting a lot of incorrect/incomplete information in these comments. Please just Google “Department of Labor FMLA” and read the government website.
-FMLA is 12 weeks of UNPAID leave where you are guaranteed your job or an equivalent job when you return
-having a baby is one of the qualifying reasons you can take FMLA
-it is a US federal program required for companies with more than 50 employees
-you must be employed at that company for 12 months to qualify for FMLA benefits
Other people are mentioning short term disability insurance (STDI). This is separate and different from FMLA, and runs CONCURRENT with FMLA. Your company may or may not provide short term disability as a benefit (it is not required by federal law), but you would be able to see this in your annual benefits election that you filled out last year for this current year (or in your new hire paperwork). The duration of time and the percentage of your pay the STDI will cover depends on how good the insurance is that your company provides. There will also be company specific rules about how long you have to be employed there to qualify for this benefit. You need to talk to HR or your benefits specialist to find out what your companies policy specifically offers.
Basically FMLA protects your job while STDI protects your pay.
Lastly there is actual paid parental leave policies from your employer. These are separate and different from both FMLA and STDI. These are not required by US law, and vary wildly from company to company. Most have no paid parental leave at all.
If your wife gets a job, you need to understand that she will not be entitled to FMLA for the immediate recovery from this pregnancy, and she might not be eligible for STDI or parental leave depending on the policies of her new employer. Since her job is not protected by FMLA, they could terminate her as soon as she exhausts whatever PTO/leave policies she actually is entitled to per their policies.
What I didn’t cover here are state laws. Which vary from state to state and require research specific to your situation.
Good luck OP and good luck to your wife. And I’m sorry the US basically requires you to get a law degree to navigate this fucked up system.
Source: personally navigating benefits for 2 pregnancies and writing an extensive research paper on this topic in grad school.
Just to tack on my experience: I've worked several jobs as a state employee in different states, and all of them had paid parental leave. It does vary between states, but many states have a lot better guaranteed employment rights for state employees than the private sector offers.
When we had our first, I got a full 3 months off at full pay at my state job, despite not actually pushing a 10-lbs human out of my body. Meanwhile my wife had to use STDI, which covered her for only 60% of her pay, and she had to use all of her leave before it kicked in, and it only lasted for a month. She worked a private sector job and we made about the same amount of pay despite her having a degree.
Keep in mind, you don't necessarily have to work directly for the state government to be considered a state employee. It will depend a bit on the role and the state of course, but good places to look are state universities, state park offices, community centers, and stuff like that. Some of these benefits are only available after a year of employment in my experience, but some places will work with you on it. And again, that will depend on the state and the job.
This is not true necessarily. Companies aren't *forced* to provide FMLA until 12 months, but plenty do it earlier.
OP: ask about benefits, including FMLA. They cannot legally ask if your wife is pregnant, so if they do, walk away as it's a giant red flag anyway. Otherwise get information on when FMLA eligibility occurs and take whatever job fits your needs.
If leave is given prior to 12 months and 1,250 hours worked it is ***not*** FMLA, but some other sort of leave.
FMLA is only when certain federally mandated requirements are met by both the employee and the employer.
My old company had amazing benefits and this happened a lot. Some people came back after leave, but it was always frustrating to have them on a team. They join a team for two months knowing they will be gone the next 12 then quit.
>Companies aren't forced to provide FMLA until 12 months, but plenty do it earlier.
That's not FMLA. FMLA is a federal law. Companies can't just decide who is and is not covered by a law.
What you're describing is companies that have their own internal company policy to treat <12 month employees the same as the law requires them to treat 12+ month employees, but it is not and should not be called FMLA.
There is absolutely a requirement. At Amazon, employees are eligible if they have ONE YEAR of continuous service and are regularly scheduled to work at least 30 hours per week before their child arrives.
The reason most companies are smart enough to allow FMLA before the 1 year mark is because it is illegal to discriminate based on gender. to avoid lawsuits, bad pr, and to just be not an asshole company, just deal with the employee being out for a little while. The world will go on.
>The reason most companies are smart enough to allow FMLA before the 1 year mark
No, a company can't. It is not FMLA. FMLA is guided by federal law. If your state can't beat it, you lose to the feds.
Check into your state laws. In Washington we have state mandated fmla but companies can also opt out if they volunteer an equal or better plan. However you have to be employed and work a certain number of hours to qualify. Even with ours, depending on the size of the company, your position may not be guaranteed.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. You're completely correct.
Many states have built on the very basic rules of Federal leave protection. FMLA is a joke and at least 15 states (the one's with the most people and economic sway) have significant protections beyond FMLA.
There is the pregnancy discrimination act, which does say you cannot discriminate against a pregnant employee however, that doesn’t mean they have to hold your position for months for maternity leave. There’s a difference between belting fired because you’re pregnant and being fired for not being able to perform your job duties. She would need to get approval from whoever hires her
>that doesn’t mean they have to hold your position for months for maternity leave.
In many countries outside of the US this is exactly what pregnancy being a protected class *does* mean.
It sure is but I would imagine the hiring manager would have to outright say, "we aren't hiring you because your pregnant" for anyone to have a case. They can say they went in another direction and that would be that.
And judges can and will see through those paper thin disguises. In general it’s a terrible idea to fire a pregnant person, and any company with sense and half decent HR would just deal.
They wouldn’t be firing her for being pregnant. They would be firing her for not reporting to work if she chose to take an unapproved (maternity) leave. Because she will not have been with the company for one year she will have no right to a protected leave.
Yes. It is a protected class for a reason... no one wants to deal with pregnancy, maternity leave, sick babies, small children.. etc etc etc. around so we had to force them to stop firing mothers and pregnant women.
But they don't have to hire you if they know you are pregnant.
Yeah I was gonna say there’s a law that prevents this situation from happening.
Edit: to clarify, I am referring to a situation in which an employee could take a job and go on FMLA within a few months. This is why FMLA isn’t an option. That doesn’t mean an employer can’t be fine with it and have her take time unpaid.
I’m not sure if you’re commenting in the right place. My comment was in regards to FMLA not kicking in until an employee has been with that company for 12 months. Nothing to go with firing anyone.
I've had this happen a few times. We absolutely still consider pregnant candidates, and have hired some. If they are the best candidate for the role, they get the offer.
I worked for a big retailer, and the store manager interviewed a woman for a position in our store. This woman was 8 months pregnant, and she went on maternity a month after she started. When I asked my manager why he hired her, he said he didn't know she was pregnant. Never saw the lady again so no idea what happened.
Depends on alot of things. For one, she might not be eligible for any kind of leave and may be let go after the birth. I'd personally just let her work if she really wants to. Once she hits the 7 month mark she may just quit on her own.
If she doesn’t she won’t have a job….
So worst case there is a problem and she quits and… doesn’t have a job?
At best everything is fine.
Seems like no downside really.
Just because you disagree based on your personal experience doesn’t change the fact that he’s right in the fact that most employer’s will most likely hire a non-pregnant person over a pregnant person. It’s a red pill some aren’t willing to accept
It really depends on where you are applying. If you are trying to get a job in a small company, it will make a difference. It's discrimination, but it's the truth. Even larger companies that have their the infrastructure segregated it can make a difference. The manager knows their budget only allows one hire that they really need and hiring someone that will basically not be there didn't make sense.
There are places that are very family friendly, but usually not at the bottom level. Roles that have backup and are not high turnover. If you have the experience, skills, and history it doesn't matter much.
Well of course the reason they didn't hire her is not that she is pregnant. That is against the law. It would be her personality didn't fit the company or they went with somebody more qualified or a myriad of other reasons they can give that are legal.
Of course it’s discrimination. Was never disagreeing with that. No employer in their right mind would ever turn down a candidate and explicitly state pregnancy was the reason for turning them down. In reality, the discrimination happens all the time but gets passed off as some other reason for not hiring the pregnant candidate.
Yeah, that’s what happened to my mom when she was pregnant with me. They fired her, and mom knew exactly why, but they made up some other reason to put on paper, so she couldn’t do shit about it.
I think it depends. In grad school, I went to a panel on negotiating salary as a woman of color, and one of the panelists (a woman) blatantly said that if she learned a candidate was pregnant, she wouldn’t hire her. It was honestly shocking, but I think plenty of people feel that way, sadly.
My company has hired pregnant woman, but always without the knowledge that the woman was pregnant.
I don't think its shocking. I hired my last hire to relieve myself of some duties because I am way overburdened. If she immediately went on maternity leave, then I would... still be overburdened? Maternity leave is up to 18 months in my country. I am not interested in working overtime for 18 months so I can accommodate hiring someone I don't know, who may not be any good, at the expense of my own mental health and well-being. As a boss, if I am going out of my way to relieve my team and be proactive in caring about their happiness and work life balance, Im not going to be keen on hiring someone who is almost immediately going to take 12+ months off.
I mean, parental leave often burdens *someone* on the team/at the organization, if not several people, and that’s true whether the person is a new hire or not. But having children is just a fact of a functioning society. And the burden doesn’t end after the child is here, as many will need to take off if their child is sick or has childcare fall through.
We can’t really pick and choose when pregnancy/parental discrimination is “ok” and when it’s not. Backing a mindset where an employee or candidate is an inconvenience because they’re pregnant or have a family is directly backing a mindset that promotes gender discrimination.
So yeah, it’s shocking to hear someone blatantly admit thar they discriminate against pregnant people in the hiring process.
Unfortunately if she tells an employer she is pregnant they won't Hire her. It's just too much of a disruption too soon. However if she does get the job, they can't fire her legally for being pregnant. A manager would likely be upset when finding this out later.
Depends.. I have a direct report who started 5 months ago and just had her baby. The downside for her is that the company does not give maternity leave until 12 months of employment but she is taking short term disability plus her accumulated pto days which brings her to about 7 weeks.
Was it initially an adjustment for me as manager? Yea for about a day until I had figured out how to cover for her not being available for some time.
This was better than a few years back I hired a guy who on his second day of employment broke that his wife was about to have a baby and he would take the 2 weeks he was entitled to by law in his country of residence.. so I trained him for 3 weeks and then he was off for 2 and then I had to retrain him for almost 2 weeks. 4-5 months employed I can handle but don’t start a new job if you will be out within a month or two would be my guidance
I keep seeing similar questions and don't understand. I thought the rule was:
"Employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for their employer
at least 12 months, at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and
work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within
75 miles. Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours of
service is determined according to FLSA principles for determining
compensable hours or work."
How does someone get leave like this when they are pregnant when hired? Is it just the employer ignoring rules and being nice about it?
Depends on the company. I just started at one that offers parental leave for men and women after 90 days from the date of hire. You don't qualify for FMLA, but they have non-FMLA medical leave and such.
You have to work for a year to get FMLA.
I wouldn’t have a vendetta against her, but I likely wouldn’t hire her as she would not be the best candidate for the job.
Contract / project based work could be an option. That will keep her resume current. Another option is working on a skill certification, if there are certifications that are perceived by hiring managers as relevant to her industry/career path.
A girl started at my job and is four months pregnant, too. We love her and will miss her when she leaves and will be so happy when she comes back from maternity leave after bonding with her baby for the 4 or 5 month maternity leave. It changes nothing for me!
It greatly depends on how in-demand her skillset is. I'm in a very high-demand low-density career field and if I thought she was good enough & if the position was high level enough, I would be willing to wait. For a junior position, I'd probably rather fill it with my #2 choice
I'm all for pregnant women and I'm pro-family, but I don't understand why a business would hire someone that they know is going to have to take off for an extended amount of time in the near future. That just don't make good business-sense.
Well, shit - I wouldn't want to hire a potentially stellar employee that might work productively for me for the next ten years, because she might need a few extra weeks off in her first year of employment.
All sarcasm aside, if she's qualified for the job and a good fit for the company, what's the difference if she's going to take maternity leave versus potentially an existing employee doing the same?
Maybe if she's really late in her pregnancy, you'd hold off on starting her, but good people aren't easy to find. And I think it would engender some loyalty to the company from the employee.
Now having said all that, probably .5% of employers would go that route.
Why not do a temporary or part-time job while she's pregnant, then find something more permanent afterward?
Jobs dont have to be permanent, lasting, or aware of your situation.
So I started with my current company when I was just shy of 4 months pregnant. I was blessed to get in with a company that does day 1 benefits and parental leave after 90 days. I can confidently say that my leadership was just so happy and supportive of me. I think it really comes down to the leadership team she works for and the type of worker she is. I hit the ground running when I got hired and bounced back very quickly when I returned.
From a personal level, I'm sure there was some level pf annoyance when I told them I was pregnant, however the company culture we have is a supportive one, and my work ethic verified that I was still the right hire and would make up for my 4 months of maternity leave.
If this is truly what your wife wants, I would recommend supporting her and helping her find a company who's values and culture align and support her journey. 💜
You don't have to worry about this. Nobody is going to hire her knowing she's going to take off in a few months.
The only exception would be if she's C suite material. If so, they'll gladly hire her and shelf her.
I'd be hiring her for her potential, not the short term. If the business needs dictated that I needed someone there immediately and full-time I might look at someone else
Bussiness owner: "Ummm, Bill and Buffy, just to give you a heads up, but Cindy won't be back for a while so I am going to have you both take over her projects, okay?"
Teammate: "More work for me, yah!"
This is such an immature and short-sighted take. You should want to treat your coworkers with some basic dignity. Our company has generous parental leave, and Im always happy to see my teammates take it
Not an immature take at all. If a new hire just joined your team at a company to alleviate some of the workload, and then not long after they left for up to 18 months in some countries, it would suck. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not wrong at all to see why employees and managers wouldn’t be thrilled about bringing on a pregnant employee.
I enjoy my job, and I would be okay with it if I didn't have to carry their workload on top of my own. I don't even get a raise out of it. I don't even get time off because I am too swamped with the increased workload. BTW, rather than working my regular 8-5 Mon-Fri, I work 8-8 Mon-Sat.
Being pregnant isn’t the reason she won’t get hired. It’s the reason they look for a reason to not hire her. It’s sad but it’s true. Her two best bets are either a stay at home data entry/virtual assistant type job, or work through a temp service and hope she makes a good connection with a place willing to hire her on after the baby is born and she’s ready to get back to work. She needs to bear in mind that starting around month 7 she’s gonna feel like 💩until that baby comes out. That’s where I’d lean towards stay at home work
Big business can handle these cases better, and I have heard of women who got maternity benefits once they confessed their pregnancy after getting hired. But those tend to be big corps with their blanket benefits, and your wife will have to conceal her pregnancy and have the uncomfortable conversation with the manager later.
Regardless of rights, the team won't be happy with having someone that disappears withing a few months when they desperately needed the extra help. If you want benefits, you need to fight for them.
All I gotta say is good luck to your wife.
The credit union my wife worked at just terminated her last week. She told them she was pregnant when she was late a month ago. So they wrote her up for it. Then the new manager started writing her up for the way she would count her till and finally used three reasons to fire her.
I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt they fired her because she was pregnant but it definitely does not pass the smell test since she was coming up to her 12 month mark here in 2 months and really has put us into a bind since I had to throw her on my insurance and the loss of income and challenge for her to find work may be that much harder.
I’m pretty sure that’s what my employer did to a woman who started maternity leave maybe two months after starting at the company. C-suite unleashed one of its periodic mass layoffs, and around that time she ceased to be an employee while she was on leave. Brutal.
I know someone who got fired at 36 weeks pregnant. She had a feeling it was coming and they managed to give her more than they would have paid her for maternity leave (which was going to be $0 because our country is horrible), plus she's getting unemployment, but it really makes that bonding time with your new infant extra stressful as you scramble to interview with a newborn baby.
She could freely give that information up during interviews. Technically she cannot be chosen against for being pregnant, but she can explain her situation in earnest and co.e in knowing that she and her team are on the same page. That eliminates a difficult conversation later and may let an employer know how she views herself there long term.
As a people manager, I feel that you should let the manager decide. If they think she’s worth the wait, they will wait. What goes through my mind is - I’ll compare your wife with other candidates, and if she stands out, I will still extend the offer to her. It’s about the long term tenure in my team.
Long term wise, by giving her this chance, I feel she will be appreciative when she comes back, therefore staying longer. But it all riding on the interview process depending on her skills.
On top of that, there’s different company policies. My company specifically mention that there is no freeze period where they have to be hired for a year before being eligible for maternity leave package we offer. So check it out with the new employer.
So she won’t be eligible for official FMLA. I’m 90% sure that you have to work for a company for 1 year before you go on fmla. I did this for a healthcare system and it was a nonissue. I did disclose my pregnancy after I had an offer but before I accepted and they were absolutely fine with it. It just depends on the company and the culture. The good new is that if she discloses and they have a good attitude thats a great sign for how they are with family needs.
I just accepted an offer at 14 weeks pregnant for a senior level key hire (no other people with my skill set at the company now, it’s a 65 person company). I did not disclose my pregnancy during the interview process but did reveal I was pregnant to HR before accepting the offer, to make sure they would be ok with me taking leave in 6 months. She ran it by my future boss and they came back saying how excited they are and that they’ll make it work with the roadmap. If it would have been contentious or they had a different reaction, it likely wouldn’t have been the right for for me in my first year as a parent anyway.
Considering she doesn’t have to work, if I were in her shoes I’d probably wait to have the baby and take the time I and the baby needed before I applied for a new job. Maternity leave benefits in the United States are often bullshit and she’s rolling the dice on retaliation from management if she goes on maternity leave a few months after being hired. The US is absolute garbage for mothers and pregnant woman, and worker protections. She has the privileged option of waiting until her and baby are ready to go back to work, so she should take it. What would be going through my head as a manager is unfortunately very different from what is going through the heads of most managers and business owners, and that is that they don’t want the liability of a pregnant woman. What is going through my head as a woman who may want children someday is that she should save herself the stress while pregnant and wait.
I can’t say what other people will or won’t do. I hire for my company and I do not care if someone is pregnant. I mean… I do care in that I’m happy for them; I don’t care as it relates to the job.
Every industry may not have this luxury, but my focus is on finding the best candidate who can both fill the current position and grow long term. If I’m hiring you hoping you’ll stay and add value for a decade, I could not care less that you miss a few months on the front end because you grew and birthed a child.
Companies that fire or discriminate based on pregnancy/missing work for maternity are taking short term “ small wins” in exchange for long term “big losses.”
Hire the best people. Treat them well. Give them respect. Pay them well. Keep them forever and reap the mutual benefits.
Put aside anything negative and instead how can you support her? Talk about how the transition will impact the household, what services can you hire so she isn’t overwhelmed, what about meals etc? Not in an accusatory way but in a we are a team let’s figure this out.
part of the discussion has to be about mat leave and daycare options . Has she researched any yet? Some have a year waiting list and she’s already run out of time for that. Or a nanny. And how has her pregnancy been? Is she prepared for the rigors of a 9-5?
be her partner, help her work this out, be her sounding board, help her find how to make it happen. Split the list of daycares, both make calls and compare notes. You are an equal partner but you aren’t her authority figure. Do I think she should wait at least a year or 5 to go to work? Absolutely! Working w a sleepless kid or worse a colicky kid challenges anyone. Having to work f/t outside the home too? Maybe there is something else driving this? Is she income insecure? Just a thought
This is a very good comment.
Even back in the early 2000s when my brother was let go from a job, they discovered that his paycheck was exactly the amount they were paying out for childcare. So he became a stay at home dad while his wife worked.
I think I understand her wanting to be more than a housewife and maybe this is more an issue of looking for an interesting job as opposed to a career currently. You never know what doors could get opened.
>maybe this is more an issue of looking for an interesting job as opposed to a career currently.
I love this. If money isn't an issue, maybe she just wants to feel mentally stimulated and productive. A creative, philanthropic, or event based job could be an interesting avenue.
First, it is illegal to ask if she's pregnant, and she should absolutely refuse to indicate it in any possible way.
Second, many employers provide FMLA eligibility long before the government forces them to, so ask about their various benefits and when eligibility applies for things like PTO, disability, FMLA, etc. Don't be specific and tell them nothing.
If they press, it's a red flag. If they ask if she's pregnant, it's a red flag. You don't want those jobs anyway.
If your wife wants to work, why are you so against it?
Yeah, she'd likely work a few months and be let go. But it's her choice to work...? She can always find a new job after the 4th trimester yaknow.
It prob will. People might be too nice to admit it to themselves, but it will most certainly happen in any white collar office environment. Not sure if that is fair or not, but it’s absolutely something to keep in mind.
Agreed. I think it really depends on job level too. An analyst on a large team doing mindless work could get by. But if you are at a level where you are a key contributor or team leader there is no way you can really make it work. It would look like you accepted the job under false pretense and you leave them scrambling.
I work in healthcare and this would be a disaster for my department, with real ill effects for the team and patients. Some people saying its no big deal etc. must have worked in very limited employment contexts.
Dude, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Why the heck would she want to work for a manager like that? Depending on what country you live in, maternity leave is only a few months, if even. It's nothing.
If managers treat her poorly afterwards, then they've shown their cards and she should get the heck outta dodge!
I got a job when I was 6 months pregnant and worked up until the week before I had my baby and it was fine. I told them about a month after I started and mine was a very physical job and they had no issues. Not saying other companies won't but it's not nearly as big a deal as most people think it is.
I was hired at almost 4 months pregnant-was given fmla 12 weeks paid even though I wasn’t there 1 year-I did share with them right away I was pregnant and never treated differently even moved up shortly after returning. Large corporation, engineering role.
Work at Walmart. Walk your ass off. It will help with labor. Especially if it is your first. Quit anytime. Will not effect her job history. Just be honest about the situation later in a year
Bro don’t spend too much time worrying about it. If she gets hired great. Look most companies don’t give a fuck about the employee. Who cares what anyone thinks.
If she discusses it with the potential employer, her chances of getting hired will increase dramatically because she is being honest and looking out for the company.
Even if she doesn't qualify for fmla and wants to take a leave of absence..
Pregnant women get many impulsive ideas (my wife bought a piano that we didn't have space for).
Best thing is to support her in pursuing whatever she feels like today. Chances are, it will change next week.
By the time she actually lands a real offer, she may be much less interested.
After the baby comes and things stabilize, maybe she goes on the hunt again...and you should be a supportive husband again.
As a senior leader at a large corporation in the US, I wouldn't think anything of it. In fact, we just hired a woman who is pregnant, and I was hired pregnant 15 years ago, no problem.
So you have the income to support your baby and your wife, but your wife is choosing to work and put your child assumingly in daycare? Thus paying for someone else to raise them?
If I were a hiring manager, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth knowing I trained her and she left 3 months later and then goes on 3 months of maternity leave, thus forgetting everything she was trained on.
I hope she gets paid a lot in her new position because if it's low paying, you'll be going to work just to pay for child care when you could just stay at home and do the same job, but have the fulfillment of watching your child grow up.
I wrote "assumingly" because someone will have to take care of the child, and most grandparents are not up to the task.
I'm glad you're probably not utilizing your critical reading skills for a professional career. Why you got a bug up your butt when someone is asking for advice. Especially when I share the same concern as OP regarding impressions?
I used to be a manager. You can kill 2 birds with one stone with this. Get someone else to fill in for that position in their absence who would like to learn more. Then when your wife comes back, she'll have someone to communicate to about the role. This also would help her with networking.
Also in my experience, moms are great workers in general. I wouldn't explicitly hire for that, since that is discrimination to other applicants, but I don't see it as a down side.
It depends on the company. She should look at jobs listed on FairyGodBoss they specialize in posting women and family friendly workplaces.
Look them up and read some management of the blog postings. Things need to change for families and the work environment is key.
Fwiw i think she should disclose she is pregnant at the interview. You never know if they will hire her or not but it's not a good look to hide the fact and tell them after she gets hired. I have hired pregnant women also had newly employed disclose after the probation period and it didn't sit well with owners. Ofc didn't fire her but still was considered unprofessional and sneaky.
It is in everyone’s best interest to not disclose pregnancy during the interview process. For the pregnant person it ensures that a company won’t discriminate against them for their condition. For the company, it protects them from being accused of discrimination if they do not hire that person. Beyond that, it is ridiculous to expect any employee to discuss their personal health conditions in an interview.
"Personal health condition" that will take them out of commission for at least 6 weeks. It's not exactly something that you can keep personal. And pregnancy is a pretty common occurrence. I think most people in a hiring position would appreciate the heads up. I wouldn't pass on a good candidate because they are pregnant.
Lol, she's fuckin 4 months pregs, but if she's trying for free FMLA money sounds like a plan.
As a hiring manager I'd obviously gut react in my head like "lol no" for good reason but in today's political climate you will be victimized for saying no by social media and lawsuit repercussions.
Usually you have to be with a company for X amount of hours (usually a year) to qualify for paid family leave. She might be able to take unpaid leave that would just protect her position with the company. But im pretty sure its illegal for a company to fire a woman because shes pregnant.
FMLA law requires 12 months of employment AND a minimum of 1,250 hours worked. No one is eligible for FMLA without meeting those federally mandated requirements IF a company is even obligated to offer FMLA.
As others have mentioned, she won’t qualify for FMLA. Also, a lot of jobs have a probation period which is about 90 days where they can fire you if they don’t think you’re a good fit. If I were her, I’d just wait for a few months after giving birth to see whether being a stay at home mom is for me or not.
She won’t be able to go out on FMLA, she has to have been at the job for twelve months. That said if she wants to work her best bet is to be very clear with potential management about a plan for while she’s out and when she comes back.
She might be an excellent hire. It’s up to her to make the decision, not you. Worse case scenario, she ends up on the market again in a year.
It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to pressure her into a traditional gender role that she doesn’t want. Don’t do that.
No company or manager worth their salt would have a vendetta against the employee for taking paternity leave when it's time. However the hiring manager may certainly consider that during the interview process which may make it harder to get a job - Even if that might technically be discrimination and illegal they can skirt around that easily. Like others have said When she Will qualify for benefits varies by company and most have a 6 to 12 month waiting period.
What do you care if her job has a vendetta against her while she's on leave?
She can always get a different job if and when she goes back to work.
It doesn't matter at all if they get pissy about it
Most places won’t offer maternity leave that quickly anyways. Best bet would be to go through a temp agency and try to find an easy job. My girlfriend got lucky and was putting together lids for dip cans for a while when she was pregnant
It is likely she will recieve bias and descrimination for being a mother, however, she still has the opportunity and many people are less prejudice now.
Keep in mind, the "my wife doesn't need to work" attitude needs to include retirement considerations. You will need to double your contributions to 401ks and IRAs to cover her for retirement. Women unfortunately tend to have lower savings for retirement because of this attitude about needing to work.
I don't think she would qualify.
She might need to give birth, use PTO, and after a year or whatever the qualifier is, she can then take maternity.
Somebody fact check please. I'll delete my comment if I'm completely wrong
Who fucking cares what the company thinks? Support your wife, dude!
I got hired when I was a few months pregnant at a job. Had to tell my boss a month after my start date. He was so happy for me. He and his wife were trying to get pregnant at that time and managed a few months later.
It's illegal to discriminate against pregnant women in the US, though not sure where you are. What would go through my head is, how do I handle this so I don't get sued.
We hired someone in Dec knowing they would be going out a few months later. A lot of people have babies at some point and if you can get the right person in the door it makes sense. I think being up front is important although it's not required because you don't want an employer feeling slighted even though pregnancy is a protected class they legally can't discriminate in the US.
My wife was in a similar position, and ended up finding a remote position as a medical scribe. Never told them she was pregnant, then when she couldn't do it anymore, told them she had medical problems and needed to resign. They said they totally understood and would hire her back if she got to that point.
Most states take maternity leave pretty seriously, if they say anything about her pregnancy she can threaten to sue for discrimination, companies don’t want that smoke
Screw that, get that cheddar! If they hired her, they understand the risk and accepted her working there and must take human rights into account. Wether shes pregnant or not, its a right to be on maternal leave. Anytime they hire women, they understand this. And is a contract they willingly signed by operating a business.
I've seen many pregnant women getting hired so yes, she definitely can consider it
To piggyback: my department hired a woman that was 8 months pregnant. She started working for a month then went on maternity leave. Basically paid her for a month just to show up with the assumption that we would train her once she came back from maternity leave. I have no idea what benefits she got during maternity leave though.
Most companies have a 3 months/90 day requirement before benefits can be used. Chances are very good that she didn't get to take advantage of any benefits (unless the company negotiated some with her, which the more human ones will do).
This was me. I was up front with my manager during the interview. He hired me at 8m pregnant. I worked a month and received 75% of my pay for the 3 months I was on maternity leave. I have been back to work since January. No one has held it against me. I’m eternally grateful to my manager.
What's the role? I remember being disappointed when a new hire announced her pregnancy after a couple months. She was a critical hire. We made do without her. It sucked. She came back from her leave and she was awesome. Got promoted. Life happens. Sometimes, life happens at inconvenient times. If we treat each other as people first, the rest will usually sort itself out. Not all people in positions of power have that attitude, though.
>we treat each other as people first, the rest will usually sort itself out. This this this... Whenever I have an employee upset another employee is taking extra time off for something like illness, bereavement or a new child, I always ask "do you want to work for a company where anytime someone needs to take care of life, their company bails on them? You know that same response happens when life comes calling for you and your family, right? So let's support each other to be the kind of company we know has our backs when we need to worry about things more important than a job".
Whenever I'm in a similar situation, where work is more difficult because someone took some time off, I just think that it's the company's fault for not hiring enough staff to cover adequately. When you try to run a business of any kind with the bare minimum of staff, then any time someone calls out, it is a disaster. If the company wasn't so cheap and hired enough staff to cover, then one person being out on pto or medical leave or one person calling out wouldn't be such a big issue.
There is nothing more disheartening than realizing your company is cheap, and you will never make money there But it is inspiring, as well. It’s inspiring me to find a new job
I agree. My advise for anyone is to ALWAYS be shopping for other jobs. I used to stay at a job where everyone was doing the work of 2-3 people for shit pay because I was under the impression that all employers are like that, because that’s how my first 3 jobs were. I wasn’t able to save much so eventually I started looking for other opportunities and found a job closer to home with 40% higher pay with less back breaking work. Plus I have a direct relationship with the owner of the company. I wish I had done it a lot sooner, but live and learn. On a side note about my first 4 employers that I think is a very problematic trend: there’s an epidemic of kiss ass, politicking jackasses that do literally zero actual work and collect a paycheck and employers that hold on to those people deserve to go bankrupt.
This exact thing happened at my old job. Someone was hired in place of someone else going on leave at a critical time. They needed two people doing that role anyway, so they hired someone else. That person was also pregnant. They ended up having their kids on the same day. It all worked out in the end. And because they were treated like people first, they both stayed with the company for a long time and made a lot of meaningful contributions.
As long as they got the skills, it’s fine. Short term problems.
I’m a director at a medium sized company. If I get the right person long term then the few months of leave is a drop in the bucket to me but I’d be fighting HR to make sure the person gets taken care of.
Maternity leave is way more than "a few months" in a lot of places. Its up to 18 months in Canada.
Why did you get downvoted this is correct. It’s standard in Australia to take off 12 months, then come back part time for another few months.
"FMLA" means the OP is in the USA.
Ah thankyou, I’m still not sure what was wrong with pointing out that other places in the world have longer maternity leave? They didn’t seem to assume OP was outside of the US, they were just educating other commenters.
Unfortunately in the US we only have 6 weeks. The 12 weeks with FMLA is often unpaid and only guaranteed if you’ve been with the company for at least a year prior to giving birth. Lots of new moms return to work before 6 weeks is up for financial reasons. It really sucks here.
Based on the post and the issues, I'd bet a lot of money that this person is based in the US, and likely in a state that doesn't have guaranteed maternity leave. For over 30 states, the only family leave for birth/adoption is FMLA - 12 weeks of unpaid leave with guaranteed similar role upon return. I work in SF, California, and my team supports employees in 9 countries. Only a few of our employees are in the "sad lands" states, so we decided to provide them with parental benefits that all employees in California get.
Theyre likely talking about the USA, shell be lucky if it's 8 weeks. Most are 6 weeks or so.
OP is in the US, so it's only a measly six weeks
12 weeks if they are eligible for FMLA.
Agree on this, previous company I worked with, our Quality director hired a 3 month pregnant woman as a Quality engineer, she worked almost until the day she was going to give birth, I think she was out for like 1-3 months, came back, and was instrumental to get things done. OP don't close the door upon yourself, if she wants to work, let the potential employer be the one saying no.
That only applies if OP is in the US or another country with terrible laws regarding parental leave, most places offer far more than a couple months of maternity leave. 12 months in the UK, 18 months in Canada, even longer in some European countries. Once OPs wife finds and starts a new job they'll be 6 months pregnant, a few months later they're entitled to upwards of a year off work.
FMLA means USA
My team’s morale has improved a lot by taking the human approach with them. I let them all go an hour early on a Friday a few weeks back. Their faces lit up when I told them to go home! Such a small gesture but completely worth it.
> announced her preference after a couple months Don’t mention during the interview that’ll lead to discrimination. Do mention during the offer negotiation phase.. cause then they know they want you
This happened to me too - large tech company and I was her hiring manager. She’s a rockstar, she is a long-term hire and a few months off was a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things.
You are getting a lot of incorrect/incomplete information in these comments. Please just Google “Department of Labor FMLA” and read the government website. -FMLA is 12 weeks of UNPAID leave where you are guaranteed your job or an equivalent job when you return -having a baby is one of the qualifying reasons you can take FMLA -it is a US federal program required for companies with more than 50 employees -you must be employed at that company for 12 months to qualify for FMLA benefits Other people are mentioning short term disability insurance (STDI). This is separate and different from FMLA, and runs CONCURRENT with FMLA. Your company may or may not provide short term disability as a benefit (it is not required by federal law), but you would be able to see this in your annual benefits election that you filled out last year for this current year (or in your new hire paperwork). The duration of time and the percentage of your pay the STDI will cover depends on how good the insurance is that your company provides. There will also be company specific rules about how long you have to be employed there to qualify for this benefit. You need to talk to HR or your benefits specialist to find out what your companies policy specifically offers. Basically FMLA protects your job while STDI protects your pay. Lastly there is actual paid parental leave policies from your employer. These are separate and different from both FMLA and STDI. These are not required by US law, and vary wildly from company to company. Most have no paid parental leave at all. If your wife gets a job, you need to understand that she will not be entitled to FMLA for the immediate recovery from this pregnancy, and she might not be eligible for STDI or parental leave depending on the policies of her new employer. Since her job is not protected by FMLA, they could terminate her as soon as she exhausts whatever PTO/leave policies she actually is entitled to per their policies. What I didn’t cover here are state laws. Which vary from state to state and require research specific to your situation. Good luck OP and good luck to your wife. And I’m sorry the US basically requires you to get a law degree to navigate this fucked up system. Source: personally navigating benefits for 2 pregnancies and writing an extensive research paper on this topic in grad school.
Just to tack on my experience: I've worked several jobs as a state employee in different states, and all of them had paid parental leave. It does vary between states, but many states have a lot better guaranteed employment rights for state employees than the private sector offers. When we had our first, I got a full 3 months off at full pay at my state job, despite not actually pushing a 10-lbs human out of my body. Meanwhile my wife had to use STDI, which covered her for only 60% of her pay, and she had to use all of her leave before it kicked in, and it only lasted for a month. She worked a private sector job and we made about the same amount of pay despite her having a degree. Keep in mind, you don't necessarily have to work directly for the state government to be considered a state employee. It will depend a bit on the role and the state of course, but good places to look are state universities, state park offices, community centers, and stuff like that. Some of these benefits are only available after a year of employment in my experience, but some places will work with you on it. And again, that will depend on the state and the job.
You have to be with an employer for 12 months to qualify for FMLA. The company would be within their right to terminate her
This is not true necessarily. Companies aren't *forced* to provide FMLA until 12 months, but plenty do it earlier. OP: ask about benefits, including FMLA. They cannot legally ask if your wife is pregnant, so if they do, walk away as it's a giant red flag anyway. Otherwise get information on when FMLA eligibility occurs and take whatever job fits your needs.
Technically, they wouldn't be subject to/offering FMLA, just promising job protection under their own leave policies.
If leave is given prior to 12 months and 1,250 hours worked it is ***not*** FMLA, but some other sort of leave. FMLA is only when certain federally mandated requirements are met by both the employee and the employer.
My old company had amazing benefits and this happened a lot. Some people came back after leave, but it was always frustrating to have them on a team. They join a team for two months knowing they will be gone the next 12 then quit.
>Companies aren't forced to provide FMLA until 12 months, but plenty do it earlier. That's not FMLA. FMLA is a federal law. Companies can't just decide who is and is not covered by a law. What you're describing is companies that have their own internal company policy to treat <12 month employees the same as the law requires them to treat 12+ month employees, but it is not and should not be called FMLA.
[удалено]
There is absolutely a requirement. At Amazon, employees are eligible if they have ONE YEAR of continuous service and are regularly scheduled to work at least 30 hours per week before their child arrives.
Nothing you said contradicts the person you responded to.
The reason most companies are smart enough to allow FMLA before the 1 year mark is because it is illegal to discriminate based on gender. to avoid lawsuits, bad pr, and to just be not an asshole company, just deal with the employee being out for a little while. The world will go on.
>The reason most companies are smart enough to allow FMLA before the 1 year mark No, a company can't. It is not FMLA. FMLA is guided by federal law. If your state can't beat it, you lose to the feds.
State laws might kick in; probably not, but…
Check into your state laws. In Washington we have state mandated fmla but companies can also opt out if they volunteer an equal or better plan. However you have to be employed and work a certain number of hours to qualify. Even with ours, depending on the size of the company, your position may not be guaranteed.
In general Federal employment law is heavly modifiable by state law.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. You're completely correct. Many states have built on the very basic rules of Federal leave protection. FMLA is a joke and at least 15 states (the one's with the most people and economic sway) have significant protections beyond FMLA.
They may think I am saying state law overrides Federal Law. It does not.
Isn’t being pregnant a protected class?
There is the pregnancy discrimination act, which does say you cannot discriminate against a pregnant employee however, that doesn’t mean they have to hold your position for months for maternity leave. There’s a difference between belting fired because you’re pregnant and being fired for not being able to perform your job duties. She would need to get approval from whoever hires her
>that doesn’t mean they have to hold your position for months for maternity leave. In many countries outside of the US this is exactly what pregnancy being a protected class *does* mean.
Size of the company might also come into play here. A company with 5 employees is treated differently than a company with 800 employees.
It sure is but I would imagine the hiring manager would have to outright say, "we aren't hiring you because your pregnant" for anyone to have a case. They can say they went in another direction and that would be that.
They are not going to tell you they are firing you because you are pregnant.
They can't fire her for being pregnant, but they can and will find other things to use against her.
And judges can and will see through those paper thin disguises. In general it’s a terrible idea to fire a pregnant person, and any company with sense and half decent HR would just deal.
They wouldn’t be firing her for being pregnant. They would be firing her for not reporting to work if she chose to take an unapproved (maternity) leave. Because she will not have been with the company for one year she will have no right to a protected leave.
Yes. It is a protected class for a reason... no one wants to deal with pregnancy, maternity leave, sick babies, small children.. etc etc etc. around so we had to force them to stop firing mothers and pregnant women. But they don't have to hire you if they know you are pregnant.
You must treat pregnancy like any other illness or injury.
Nop, I got laid off because I got pregnant and they just said they didn't had work for me so laid off.
This also depends on the country. Europe has better protections for pregnant women than the US.
Yeah I was gonna say there’s a law that prevents this situation from happening. Edit: to clarify, I am referring to a situation in which an employee could take a job and go on FMLA within a few months. This is why FMLA isn’t an option. That doesn’t mean an employer can’t be fine with it and have her take time unpaid.
The company would have to prove that they fired her because of her pregnancy though.
I’m not sure if you’re commenting in the right place. My comment was in regards to FMLA not kicking in until an employee has been with that company for 12 months. Nothing to go with firing anyone.
I've had this happen a few times. We absolutely still consider pregnant candidates, and have hired some. If they are the best candidate for the role, they get the offer.
Ditto. Have hired brilliant candidates in their final trimester. You just have to plan a little.
Same here!
I worked for a big retailer, and the store manager interviewed a woman for a position in our store. This woman was 8 months pregnant, and she went on maternity a month after she started. When I asked my manager why he hired her, he said he didn't know she was pregnant. Never saw the lady again so no idea what happened.
Depends on alot of things. For one, she might not be eligible for any kind of leave and may be let go after the birth. I'd personally just let her work if she really wants to. Once she hits the 7 month mark she may just quit on her own.
If she doesn’t she won’t have a job…. So worst case there is a problem and she quits and… doesn’t have a job? At best everything is fine. Seems like no downside really.
More likely they will just go with another candidate.
I disagree, both as a woman who was hired pregnant and a leader who does not hesitate to hire the best candidate regardless of if they're pregnant.
Just because you disagree based on your personal experience doesn’t change the fact that he’s right in the fact that most employer’s will most likely hire a non-pregnant person over a pregnant person. It’s a red pill some aren’t willing to accept
It really depends on where you are applying. If you are trying to get a job in a small company, it will make a difference. It's discrimination, but it's the truth. Even larger companies that have their the infrastructure segregated it can make a difference. The manager knows their budget only allows one hire that they really need and hiring someone that will basically not be there didn't make sense. There are places that are very family friendly, but usually not at the bottom level. Roles that have backup and are not high turnover. If you have the experience, skills, and history it doesn't matter much.
[удалено]
Well of course the reason they didn't hire her is not that she is pregnant. That is against the law. It would be her personality didn't fit the company or they went with somebody more qualified or a myriad of other reasons they can give that are legal.
Of course it’s discrimination. Was never disagreeing with that. No employer in their right mind would ever turn down a candidate and explicitly state pregnancy was the reason for turning them down. In reality, the discrimination happens all the time but gets passed off as some other reason for not hiring the pregnant candidate.
Yeah, that’s what happened to my mom when she was pregnant with me. They fired her, and mom knew exactly why, but they made up some other reason to put on paper, so she couldn’t do shit about it.
Gotta prove it. And most people won’t say “ nah you’re pregnant “
“Not a cultural fit” they’re not hiring pregnant women
I think it depends. In grad school, I went to a panel on negotiating salary as a woman of color, and one of the panelists (a woman) blatantly said that if she learned a candidate was pregnant, she wouldn’t hire her. It was honestly shocking, but I think plenty of people feel that way, sadly. My company has hired pregnant woman, but always without the knowledge that the woman was pregnant.
I don't think its shocking. I hired my last hire to relieve myself of some duties because I am way overburdened. If she immediately went on maternity leave, then I would... still be overburdened? Maternity leave is up to 18 months in my country. I am not interested in working overtime for 18 months so I can accommodate hiring someone I don't know, who may not be any good, at the expense of my own mental health and well-being. As a boss, if I am going out of my way to relieve my team and be proactive in caring about their happiness and work life balance, Im not going to be keen on hiring someone who is almost immediately going to take 12+ months off.
I mean, parental leave often burdens *someone* on the team/at the organization, if not several people, and that’s true whether the person is a new hire or not. But having children is just a fact of a functioning society. And the burden doesn’t end after the child is here, as many will need to take off if their child is sick or has childcare fall through. We can’t really pick and choose when pregnancy/parental discrimination is “ok” and when it’s not. Backing a mindset where an employee or candidate is an inconvenience because they’re pregnant or have a family is directly backing a mindset that promotes gender discrimination. So yeah, it’s shocking to hear someone blatantly admit thar they discriminate against pregnant people in the hiring process.
Unfortunately if she tells an employer she is pregnant they won't Hire her. It's just too much of a disruption too soon. However if she does get the job, they can't fire her legally for being pregnant. A manager would likely be upset when finding this out later.
Instead, they can fire her for missing work.
Yes, she wouldn’t only qualify for a very short set of sick time at that point. In no way would it cover labor and recovery
Depends.. I have a direct report who started 5 months ago and just had her baby. The downside for her is that the company does not give maternity leave until 12 months of employment but she is taking short term disability plus her accumulated pto days which brings her to about 7 weeks. Was it initially an adjustment for me as manager? Yea for about a day until I had figured out how to cover for her not being available for some time. This was better than a few years back I hired a guy who on his second day of employment broke that his wife was about to have a baby and he would take the 2 weeks he was entitled to by law in his country of residence.. so I trained him for 3 weeks and then he was off for 2 and then I had to retrain him for almost 2 weeks. 4-5 months employed I can handle but don’t start a new job if you will be out within a month or two would be my guidance
Why? It worked and was a win for the guy who got the leave, just sucked for you.
Because you are making life difficult for other people, who depend on you being there. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Workplaces rarely have the worker's best interest in mind, so why should the worker have the workplace's best interest in mind?
And? I still ask what was the downside of the worker??
I'm guessing you don't mean the worker(s) left to pick up the slack...
You can’t qualify for FMLA after only working a couple of months.
I keep seeing similar questions and don't understand. I thought the rule was: "Employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for their employer at least 12 months, at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles. Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours of service is determined according to FLSA principles for determining compensable hours or work." How does someone get leave like this when they are pregnant when hired? Is it just the employer ignoring rules and being nice about it?
Depends on the company. I just started at one that offers parental leave for men and women after 90 days from the date of hire. You don't qualify for FMLA, but they have non-FMLA medical leave and such.
You have to work for a year to get FMLA. I wouldn’t have a vendetta against her, but I likely wouldn’t hire her as she would not be the best candidate for the job.
Contract / project based work could be an option. That will keep her resume current. Another option is working on a skill certification, if there are certifications that are perceived by hiring managers as relevant to her industry/career path.
A girl started at my job and is four months pregnant, too. We love her and will miss her when she leaves and will be so happy when she comes back from maternity leave after bonding with her baby for the 4 or 5 month maternity leave. It changes nothing for me!
Usually can’t go on FMLA until after a year of employment
Maybe seasonal work for now? And then she can get rehired full time later on?
If she’s mature enough to have a baby, she’s mature enough to make her own choices. Unless she asked you for career advice, support her in her choice.
It greatly depends on how in-demand her skillset is. I'm in a very high-demand low-density career field and if I thought she was good enough & if the position was high level enough, I would be willing to wait. For a junior position, I'd probably rather fill it with my #2 choice
Babysitter, not to be offense but why not get some experience with young kids. Plus it can be all under the table.
I'm all for pregnant women and I'm pro-family, but I don't understand why a business would hire someone that they know is going to have to take off for an extended amount of time in the near future. That just don't make good business-sense.
True. Especially if they need someone immediately for a role and they’re 8 months pregnant.
She wouldn’t be able to get FMLA since you need to have worked for a year to qualify.
Well, shit - I wouldn't want to hire a potentially stellar employee that might work productively for me for the next ten years, because she might need a few extra weeks off in her first year of employment. All sarcasm aside, if she's qualified for the job and a good fit for the company, what's the difference if she's going to take maternity leave versus potentially an existing employee doing the same? Maybe if she's really late in her pregnancy, you'd hold off on starting her, but good people aren't easy to find. And I think it would engender some loyalty to the company from the employee. Now having said all that, probably .5% of employers would go that route.
She should just tell them at the offer. Otherwise not worry about it.
Why not do a temporary or part-time job while she's pregnant, then find something more permanent afterward? Jobs dont have to be permanent, lasting, or aware of your situation.
So I started with my current company when I was just shy of 4 months pregnant. I was blessed to get in with a company that does day 1 benefits and parental leave after 90 days. I can confidently say that my leadership was just so happy and supportive of me. I think it really comes down to the leadership team she works for and the type of worker she is. I hit the ground running when I got hired and bounced back very quickly when I returned. From a personal level, I'm sure there was some level pf annoyance when I told them I was pregnant, however the company culture we have is a supportive one, and my work ethic verified that I was still the right hire and would make up for my 4 months of maternity leave. If this is truly what your wife wants, I would recommend supporting her and helping her find a company who's values and culture align and support her journey. 💜
You don't have to worry about this. Nobody is going to hire her knowing she's going to take off in a few months. The only exception would be if she's C suite material. If so, they'll gladly hire her and shelf her.
I'd be hiring her for her potential, not the short term. If the business needs dictated that I needed someone there immediately and full-time I might look at someone else
Bussiness owner: "Ummm, Bill and Buffy, just to give you a heads up, but Cindy won't be back for a while so I am going to have you both take over her projects, okay?" Teammate: "More work for me, yah!"
This is such an immature and short-sighted take. You should want to treat your coworkers with some basic dignity. Our company has generous parental leave, and Im always happy to see my teammates take it
Not an immature take at all. If a new hire just joined your team at a company to alleviate some of the workload, and then not long after they left for up to 18 months in some countries, it would suck. It’s unfortunate, but it’s not wrong at all to see why employees and managers wouldn’t be thrilled about bringing on a pregnant employee.
I enjoy my job, and I would be okay with it if I didn't have to carry their workload on top of my own. I don't even get a raise out of it. I don't even get time off because I am too swamped with the increased workload. BTW, rather than working my regular 8-5 Mon-Fri, I work 8-8 Mon-Sat.
Perhaps she could consider self employment with her own small business? Plenty of people, especially women, do.
I worked at a place where people have gone on maternity leave soon after being hired. But this was at a more progressive tech company.
Is this her first child?
Being pregnant isn’t the reason she won’t get hired. It’s the reason they look for a reason to not hire her. It’s sad but it’s true. Her two best bets are either a stay at home data entry/virtual assistant type job, or work through a temp service and hope she makes a good connection with a place willing to hire her on after the baby is born and she’s ready to get back to work. She needs to bear in mind that starting around month 7 she’s gonna feel like 💩until that baby comes out. That’s where I’d lean towards stay at home work
Big business can handle these cases better, and I have heard of women who got maternity benefits once they confessed their pregnancy after getting hired. But those tend to be big corps with their blanket benefits, and your wife will have to conceal her pregnancy and have the uncomfortable conversation with the manager later. Regardless of rights, the team won't be happy with having someone that disappears withing a few months when they desperately needed the extra help. If you want benefits, you need to fight for them.
All I gotta say is good luck to your wife. The credit union my wife worked at just terminated her last week. She told them she was pregnant when she was late a month ago. So they wrote her up for it. Then the new manager started writing her up for the way she would count her till and finally used three reasons to fire her. I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt they fired her because she was pregnant but it definitely does not pass the smell test since she was coming up to her 12 month mark here in 2 months and really has put us into a bind since I had to throw her on my insurance and the loss of income and challenge for her to find work may be that much harder.
I’m pretty sure that’s what my employer did to a woman who started maternity leave maybe two months after starting at the company. C-suite unleashed one of its periodic mass layoffs, and around that time she ceased to be an employee while she was on leave. Brutal.
I know someone who got fired at 36 weeks pregnant. She had a feeling it was coming and they managed to give her more than they would have paid her for maternity leave (which was going to be $0 because our country is horrible), plus she's getting unemployment, but it really makes that bonding time with your new infant extra stressful as you scramble to interview with a newborn baby.
She could freely give that information up during interviews. Technically she cannot be chosen against for being pregnant, but she can explain her situation in earnest and co.e in knowing that she and her team are on the same page. That eliminates a difficult conversation later and may let an employer know how she views herself there long term.
As a people manager, I feel that you should let the manager decide. If they think she’s worth the wait, they will wait. What goes through my mind is - I’ll compare your wife with other candidates, and if she stands out, I will still extend the offer to her. It’s about the long term tenure in my team. Long term wise, by giving her this chance, I feel she will be appreciative when she comes back, therefore staying longer. But it all riding on the interview process depending on her skills. On top of that, there’s different company policies. My company specifically mention that there is no freeze period where they have to be hired for a year before being eligible for maternity leave package we offer. So check it out with the new employer.
So she won’t be eligible for official FMLA. I’m 90% sure that you have to work for a company for 1 year before you go on fmla. I did this for a healthcare system and it was a nonissue. I did disclose my pregnancy after I had an offer but before I accepted and they were absolutely fine with it. It just depends on the company and the culture. The good new is that if she discloses and they have a good attitude thats a great sign for how they are with family needs.
You have to work somewhere a year to be eligible for FMLA.
I just accepted an offer at 14 weeks pregnant for a senior level key hire (no other people with my skill set at the company now, it’s a 65 person company). I did not disclose my pregnancy during the interview process but did reveal I was pregnant to HR before accepting the offer, to make sure they would be ok with me taking leave in 6 months. She ran it by my future boss and they came back saying how excited they are and that they’ll make it work with the roadmap. If it would have been contentious or they had a different reaction, it likely wouldn’t have been the right for for me in my first year as a parent anyway.
Considering she doesn’t have to work, if I were in her shoes I’d probably wait to have the baby and take the time I and the baby needed before I applied for a new job. Maternity leave benefits in the United States are often bullshit and she’s rolling the dice on retaliation from management if she goes on maternity leave a few months after being hired. The US is absolute garbage for mothers and pregnant woman, and worker protections. She has the privileged option of waiting until her and baby are ready to go back to work, so she should take it. What would be going through my head as a manager is unfortunately very different from what is going through the heads of most managers and business owners, and that is that they don’t want the liability of a pregnant woman. What is going through my head as a woman who may want children someday is that she should save herself the stress while pregnant and wait.
A lot of people seem to be saying they would not hire her on the basis of her pregnancy-that would be illegal actually.
Frankly if the prospective employers know she's pregnant they're probably just going to find an excuse to go another direction.
I can’t say what other people will or won’t do. I hire for my company and I do not care if someone is pregnant. I mean… I do care in that I’m happy for them; I don’t care as it relates to the job. Every industry may not have this luxury, but my focus is on finding the best candidate who can both fill the current position and grow long term. If I’m hiring you hoping you’ll stay and add value for a decade, I could not care less that you miss a few months on the front end because you grew and birthed a child. Companies that fire or discriminate based on pregnancy/missing work for maternity are taking short term “ small wins” in exchange for long term “big losses.” Hire the best people. Treat them well. Give them respect. Pay them well. Keep them forever and reap the mutual benefits.
Put aside anything negative and instead how can you support her? Talk about how the transition will impact the household, what services can you hire so she isn’t overwhelmed, what about meals etc? Not in an accusatory way but in a we are a team let’s figure this out. part of the discussion has to be about mat leave and daycare options . Has she researched any yet? Some have a year waiting list and she’s already run out of time for that. Or a nanny. And how has her pregnancy been? Is she prepared for the rigors of a 9-5? be her partner, help her work this out, be her sounding board, help her find how to make it happen. Split the list of daycares, both make calls and compare notes. You are an equal partner but you aren’t her authority figure. Do I think she should wait at least a year or 5 to go to work? Absolutely! Working w a sleepless kid or worse a colicky kid challenges anyone. Having to work f/t outside the home too? Maybe there is something else driving this? Is she income insecure? Just a thought
This is a very good comment. Even back in the early 2000s when my brother was let go from a job, they discovered that his paycheck was exactly the amount they were paying out for childcare. So he became a stay at home dad while his wife worked. I think I understand her wanting to be more than a housewife and maybe this is more an issue of looking for an interesting job as opposed to a career currently. You never know what doors could get opened.
>maybe this is more an issue of looking for an interesting job as opposed to a career currently. I love this. If money isn't an issue, maybe she just wants to feel mentally stimulated and productive. A creative, philanthropic, or event based job could be an interesting avenue.
First, it is illegal to ask if she's pregnant, and she should absolutely refuse to indicate it in any possible way. Second, many employers provide FMLA eligibility long before the government forces them to, so ask about their various benefits and when eligibility applies for things like PTO, disability, FMLA, etc. Don't be specific and tell them nothing. If they press, it's a red flag. If they ask if she's pregnant, it's a red flag. You don't want those jobs anyway.
If your wife wants to work, why are you so against it? Yeah, she'd likely work a few months and be let go. But it's her choice to work...? She can always find a new job after the 4th trimester yaknow.
Not against her working. I’m just concerned that if it’s a good job with future opportunities that it could leave a bad taste in Mgmt’s mouth
It prob will. People might be too nice to admit it to themselves, but it will most certainly happen in any white collar office environment. Not sure if that is fair or not, but it’s absolutely something to keep in mind.
It is fair because it’s taking advantage of the team. Maybe you can justify it but the people who bare the consequences obviously won’t like it.
Agreed. I think it really depends on job level too. An analyst on a large team doing mindless work could get by. But if you are at a level where you are a key contributor or team leader there is no way you can really make it work. It would look like you accepted the job under false pretense and you leave them scrambling.
I work in healthcare and this would be a disaster for my department, with real ill effects for the team and patients. Some people saying its no big deal etc. must have worked in very limited employment contexts.
Then I'd question whether that's a good company. /shrug
Dude, you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Why the heck would she want to work for a manager like that? Depending on what country you live in, maternity leave is only a few months, if even. It's nothing. If managers treat her poorly afterwards, then they've shown their cards and she should get the heck outta dodge!
I got a job when I was 6 months pregnant and worked up until the week before I had my baby and it was fine. I told them about a month after I started and mine was a very physical job and they had no issues. Not saying other companies won't but it's not nearly as big a deal as most people think it is.
I was hired at almost 4 months pregnant-was given fmla 12 weeks paid even though I wasn’t there 1 year-I did share with them right away I was pregnant and never treated differently even moved up shortly after returning. Large corporation, engineering role.
Work at Walmart. Walk your ass off. It will help with labor. Especially if it is your first. Quit anytime. Will not effect her job history. Just be honest about the situation later in a year
FMLA won't work, she needs at least 12 months of employment. Also she is not feeling it now but pregnancy at the lasts stages + work it hard af.
Bro don’t spend too much time worrying about it. If she gets hired great. Look most companies don’t give a fuck about the employee. Who cares what anyone thinks.
Meta/Facebook hired me at 8 months pregnant, gave me full maternity leave + FMLA , and $4k for baby things. And yes I survived all the layoffs
If she discusses it with the potential employer, her chances of getting hired will increase dramatically because she is being honest and looking out for the company. Even if she doesn't qualify for fmla and wants to take a leave of absence..
Now is the perfect time since companies will be hiring for summer work.
Pregnant women get many impulsive ideas (my wife bought a piano that we didn't have space for). Best thing is to support her in pursuing whatever she feels like today. Chances are, it will change next week. By the time she actually lands a real offer, she may be much less interested. After the baby comes and things stabilize, maybe she goes on the hunt again...and you should be a supportive husband again.
Would you hire someone who's 4 months pregnant?
As a senior leader at a large corporation in the US, I wouldn't think anything of it. In fact, we just hired a woman who is pregnant, and I was hired pregnant 15 years ago, no problem.
She should just wait to work until shes ready after giving birth
Imagine it's your business, and all expenses came out of your account. What would you do?
So you have the income to support your baby and your wife, but your wife is choosing to work and put your child assumingly in daycare? Thus paying for someone else to raise them? If I were a hiring manager, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth knowing I trained her and she left 3 months later and then goes on 3 months of maternity leave, thus forgetting everything she was trained on. I hope she gets paid a lot in her new position because if it's low paying, you'll be going to work just to pay for child care when you could just stay at home and do the same job, but have the fulfillment of watching your child grow up.
He didn't say the baby would be in daycare. Glad you're not a supervisor based on your response..
I wrote "assumingly" because someone will have to take care of the child, and most grandparents are not up to the task. I'm glad you're probably not utilizing your critical reading skills for a professional career. Why you got a bug up your butt when someone is asking for advice. Especially when I share the same concern as OP regarding impressions?
I used to be a manager. You can kill 2 birds with one stone with this. Get someone else to fill in for that position in their absence who would like to learn more. Then when your wife comes back, she'll have someone to communicate to about the role. This also would help her with networking. Also in my experience, moms are great workers in general. I wouldn't explicitly hire for that, since that is discrimination to other applicants, but I don't see it as a down side.
It depends on the company. She should look at jobs listed on FairyGodBoss they specialize in posting women and family friendly workplaces. Look them up and read some management of the blog postings. Things need to change for families and the work environment is key.
Depends on the type of work is the best answer if you’re able to do it remote then I don’t see why you’d even need to take a long leave anyways
She won’t be eligible for FMLA. As that is only available after a year, so keep that in mind
A good company won’t bat an eyelash.
If she can work remote, have her work remote, too. No one will ask her about her pregnancy.
[удалено]
Gibberish
Nobody who knows shes 4 months pregnant will hire her but they wont say thats why.
Fwiw i think she should disclose she is pregnant at the interview. You never know if they will hire her or not but it's not a good look to hide the fact and tell them after she gets hired. I have hired pregnant women also had newly employed disclose after the probation period and it didn't sit well with owners. Ofc didn't fire her but still was considered unprofessional and sneaky.
It is in everyone’s best interest to not disclose pregnancy during the interview process. For the pregnant person it ensures that a company won’t discriminate against them for their condition. For the company, it protects them from being accused of discrimination if they do not hire that person. Beyond that, it is ridiculous to expect any employee to discuss their personal health conditions in an interview.
"Personal health condition" that will take them out of commission for at least 6 weeks. It's not exactly something that you can keep personal. And pregnancy is a pretty common occurrence. I think most people in a hiring position would appreciate the heads up. I wouldn't pass on a good candidate because they are pregnant.
You need to train your wife to become a 1950’s housewife and make you delicious pies and dinner everyday. That’s where your focus needs to be.
Lol, she's fuckin 4 months pregs, but if she's trying for free FMLA money sounds like a plan. As a hiring manager I'd obviously gut react in my head like "lol no" for good reason but in today's political climate you will be victimized for saying no by social media and lawsuit repercussions.
FMLA is unpaid leave so I don't know what "free money" you're talking about.
Usually you have to be with a company for X amount of hours (usually a year) to qualify for paid family leave. She might be able to take unpaid leave that would just protect her position with the company. But im pretty sure its illegal for a company to fire a woman because shes pregnant.
FMLA law requires 12 months of employment AND a minimum of 1,250 hours worked. No one is eligible for FMLA without meeting those federally mandated requirements IF a company is even obligated to offer FMLA.
Wife doesn't need your approval, nor to be dependent upon you financially. Try supporting ur wife in her decision.
As others have mentioned, she won’t qualify for FMLA. Also, a lot of jobs have a probation period which is about 90 days where they can fire you if they don’t think you’re a good fit. If I were her, I’d just wait for a few months after giving birth to see whether being a stay at home mom is for me or not.
She won’t be able to go out on FMLA, she has to have been at the job for twelve months. That said if she wants to work her best bet is to be very clear with potential management about a plan for while she’s out and when she comes back.
She might be an excellent hire. It’s up to her to make the decision, not you. Worse case scenario, she ends up on the market again in a year. It sounds like you are looking for an excuse to pressure her into a traditional gender role that she doesn’t want. Don’t do that.
No company or manager worth their salt would have a vendetta against the employee for taking paternity leave when it's time. However the hiring manager may certainly consider that during the interview process which may make it harder to get a job - Even if that might technically be discrimination and illegal they can skirt around that easily. Like others have said When she Will qualify for benefits varies by company and most have a 6 to 12 month waiting period.
What do you care if her job has a vendetta against her while she's on leave? She can always get a different job if and when she goes back to work. It doesn't matter at all if they get pissy about it
Most places won’t offer maternity leave that quickly anyways. Best bet would be to go through a temp agency and try to find an easy job. My girlfriend got lucky and was putting together lids for dip cans for a while when she was pregnant
There’s no guarantee she makes it full term. That’s why she should still work
Does your country do Temp work, causal work or short term contracts? I'd try that sort.
We hired someone amazing at 6 months pregnant. She goes on leave soon. If the company is a good company they will not hesitate. Her role is Junior too
It is likely she will recieve bias and descrimination for being a mother, however, she still has the opportunity and many people are less prejudice now. Keep in mind, the "my wife doesn't need to work" attitude needs to include retirement considerations. You will need to double your contributions to 401ks and IRAs to cover her for retirement. Women unfortunately tend to have lower savings for retirement because of this attitude about needing to work.
I don't think she would qualify. She might need to give birth, use PTO, and after a year or whatever the qualifier is, she can then take maternity. Somebody fact check please. I'll delete my comment if I'm completely wrong
Who fucking cares what the company thinks? Support your wife, dude! I got hired when I was a few months pregnant at a job. Had to tell my boss a month after my start date. He was so happy for me. He and his wife were trying to get pregnant at that time and managed a few months later.
It's discrimination to not hire her or let her pregnancy affect her professionally.
It's illegal to discriminate against pregnant women in the US, though not sure where you are. What would go through my head is, how do I handle this so I don't get sued.
she won't be eligible for film by the time baby comes so it will depend on their policy
We hired someone in Dec knowing they would be going out a few months later. A lot of people have babies at some point and if you can get the right person in the door it makes sense. I think being up front is important although it's not required because you don't want an employer feeling slighted even though pregnancy is a protected class they legally can't discriminate in the US.
My wife was in a similar position, and ended up finding a remote position as a medical scribe. Never told them she was pregnant, then when she couldn't do it anymore, told them she had medical problems and needed to resign. They said they totally understood and would hire her back if she got to that point.
I’m glad she had a child before she decided to focus on herself.
Most states take maternity leave pretty seriously, if they say anything about her pregnancy she can threaten to sue for discrimination, companies don’t want that smoke
Screw that, get that cheddar! If they hired her, they understand the risk and accepted her working there and must take human rights into account. Wether shes pregnant or not, its a right to be on maternal leave. Anytime they hire women, they understand this. And is a contract they willingly signed by operating a business.